Amazon’s latest Kindle deletion: erotic, incest-themed fiction

Amazon has reportedly begun removing content that touches on various forms of …

Amazon may be in the process of stirring up some more trouble for itself thanks to reports that the company is deleting certain kinds of erotica from both the online store and users' devices. The erotica in question is controversial: it talks about certain acts of incest. Judging from Amazon's most recent bouts with book "censorship," users who have already paid for the deleted content are likely to get fired up.

Self-published author Selena Kitt was first notified that the print version of one of her fiction books violated Amazon's content guidelines last week, followed by the unceremonious removal of two more offerings from the Kindle store. After noticing that the three books that Amazon singled out were all "erotic incest fantasy fiction," she found at least three other authors whose incest-themed erotica had been removed from Amazon, followed by a Kindle support thread full of even more names.

"I want to be clear that while the subject of incest may not appeal to some, there is no underage contact in any of my work, and I make that either explicitly clear in all my stories or I state it up front in the book's disclaimer," Kitt wrote in a blog post. "I don't condone or support actual incest, just as someone who writes mysteries about serial killers wouldn't condone killing."

On top of the book removal from Amazon's store, Kitt's readers reportedly found that her books had disappeared from their Kindles as well. "When one reader called to get a refund for the book she no longer had access to, she was chastised by the Amazon customer service representative about the 'severity' of the book she’d chosen to purchase," Kitt wrote.

If true, then Amazon has some explaining to do. When the company "went Big Brother" and deleted unauthorized copies of 1984 from readers' Kindles, the company was slapped with a lawsuit for removing content that people not only paid for, but also made notes and highlights in. Amazon eventually settled the lawsuit late last year, and in the settlement, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that described its content deletion policy. When it came to books, Amazon said that deletions would only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user.

Fictional incest activities between two fictional adults doesn't appear to fall into any of those categories, but that may be neither here nor there, since Amazon's author guidelines restrict unspecified kinds of "offensive" content. This came to a head last month, when a furor rose among Internet users over Amazon's sale of The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure. Amazon eventually caved to public pressure and removed the book, despite the company's insistence that it tries to resist censorship whenever possible.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable," the company said in a statement at the time. "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Sex educator and author Violet Blue pointed out in an e-mail to Ars that Amazon's decisions here only continue to highlight the downsides to e-book DRM compared to physical books. "[Physical books] can't be taken back by the seller once you buy them, because the seller does not approve of the content," Blue said.

"I think what bothers me the most [with this situation] is the privacy issue for readers—this is actually HUGE. Especially with the egregious irresponsibility in their customer service representative department. Amazon is monitoring, watching and deciding for you what is sexually appropriate for you—their customers," she added.

Kitt has one more bone to pick with Amazon over its latest decision: Amazon's own TV ad shows a woman reading a Kindle book that details a sexual relationship between a 19-year-old and his stepmother, "which, in some states, is legally incest." Whether Amazon thinks the book in the ad is equally inappropriate will remain unclear for now, though, as Amazon did not respond to our requests for comment on this story.

Update: An Amazon spokesperson has responded to our query by saying that the books violated Amazon's content guidelines. As for the books being deleted from users' Kindles: "Due to a technical issue, for a short window of time three books were temporarily unavailable for re-download by customers who had previously purchased them. When this was brought to our attention, we fixed the problem and those books were once again made available for re-download. We apologize for the inconvenience."

268 Reader Comments

I was considering buying a Kindle, but you know, I really don't like the thought that Amazon can arbitrarily delete a book I've purchased from my device with no recourse whatsoever just because they later decide they don't like the content. If they at least refunded people's purchase that would be one thing, but nothing at all except scornful customer service reps? Screw that. I wonder when they'll start deleting historical fiction because of the sexual proclivities of some historical figures. (Elizabeth Bathory anyone?)

Same here. Thank God I didn't pickup Kindle yesterday when I visited Best Buy.

Only if Kindle worked with open format like ePubs... I'd still be interested

Was the whole reason I got the nook--I looked at what formats the ereaders supported, and the only one I saw at the time that had epub and pdf was the nook.

Amazon has the right to sell what it wants to and not sell what it doesn't want to for whatever reason it wants. I don't see why anyone would have any problem with that. Where is the story?

The story is that Amazon is removing content from people's devices that they already bought when the company previously agreed to stop doing that unless it was a failed credit card transaction, there was a judicial order saying so, the book was proven to be malware, or the user gave permission.

Although I agree with rombuu about Amazon's right to sell what they want, I find it amazing that Amazon pulled such a stupid stunt after agreeing in a legal court that they wouldn't, unless there is some sort of grey area we aren't aware of. I would very much like to know who in the chain made the decision to erase the books from the e-readers.

Heh, lets just see them try to pull "The Song of Ice and Fire" saga offline... "A Game of Thrones" is about to air on HBO, and one of the first scenes in that book, and a recurring theme throughout the books, includes both incest and rape, including that of 13 and 11 year old characters. It's one of the most successful fantasy franchises in history, and George R R Martin will have a field day if they try to pull it, and the rest will have a field day because they don't.

GKH, you may already have read books that were banned at one time. And perhaps some you've read will be banned in the future. Google for "banned books" and read some of the resources you'll find. Every year the American Library Association holds a banned books week to celebrate the freedom to read.

Einstein failed a test. I failed a test. Therefore I'm as smart as Einstein!

I've read a few, and to be clear I would never support the banning of any book; in fact I'm violently opposed to it, no matter how little I might personally think of the work in question.

I'd have a lot more respect for this sort of decision if they really meant to enforce it, however searching for the string 'incest' at their U.K site shows the shitty double standards you can expect from Amazon these days - http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_nos ... st&x=0&y=0

I fucking hate Amazon. Unfortunately they have the largest selection of books, and the prices are by far the lowest.

I went to a Barnes and Noble the other day to buy a book. It was 26 dollars. I checked it on Amazon using my iPhone, and it showed 17 dollars. So of course I bought it from Amazon. I felt sad doing it, but 9 dollars is 9 dollars.

If a viable alternative to Amazon existed, I'd switch in a heart beat.

I hate to take an accusatory tone, but if you’re willing to ignore your moral reservations about a company for a ~30% discount on a completely non-essential product aren’t you part of the problem??

I read around 50 books per year, and most of them are in e-book format (i.e. they get the special kindle discount). If I got the hardcover versions - as I would have to, since I buy books when they come out - I would be paying 15 dollars extra per book. That's 750 dollars extra per year.

I don't have that kind of disposable income.

Convenience is a huge factor too. There's a big difference between having to stop by the bookstore, find the book I want, wait in line at the cashier, then drive back, and simply buying it online with Amazon One-Click and having it transferred to my iPad in 20 seconds.

Your point being? Just because someone likes an alternative or competing product, that doesn't mean they're wrong about what they're saying.

Do you think Amazon deleting items that they've sold to people, without their express consent, is a good thing? Particularly given that they've agreed to not do so except under a very limited set of circumstances, none of which seems to apply to this situation?

Why does Ars use Amazon as a punching bag? I swear, they generate a tsunamis worth of outrage over every little pinprick.

Allow me to illustrate: How many Ars members had heard of or had planned to buy the books in question? I'd bet no one had even heard of them.

Edit: Just saw who the author was. An avowed iBooks fan.

I'm a HUGE Amazon fan, but censorship is censorship. Not selling a book is one thing, but to actually moderate what books I should and should not have on my Kindle is going way too far. These people bought the books. The books are not illegal. This is pure moral censorship. They said they wouldn't do this again, and they did.

There's a reason I strip the DRM off of every book I buy from Amazon and keep a second copy on my computer. The Kindle is a great device, but never trust an online repository to keep your books (or games or music) available after you've bought it.

That said. I have no clear idea about the specifics of this particular case. I'd like to hear Amazon's side of the story before I pass full judgment. It's possible the author plagiarized the book, that this was an honest mistake, or something else.

Excuse you? Can you show me a single place where I am an "avowed" iBooks fan? Honestly, I would love to know, especially since I don't own any iBooks and the app isn't on any of my devices. I don't use the product at all and in fact, I have publicly criticized iBooks for having a horrible selection of content.

Anyone who reads my articles knows that I am a Kindle user of many years and stick to the Kindle platform for all of my e-books. I encourage you to do some digging of your own before making such ridiculous accusations because you have some kind of personal beef.

I think Amazon is trying to draw a line between historically reporting episodes of incest, and those books that dwell on the topic as the main driver of the story.

The Bible and other historical works, etc, I would imagine fall under something like a "reportage" clause at Amazon, meaning they consider it simply repeating supposed facts and not ficticious or gratifying in nature.

Contrast this with works of fiction which may include incest and other naughty parts for titilation and I could see how Amazon would start pulling books, especially if they're reacting to direct complaints about said books or still feeling the fallout from the Pedo book sales complaints.

Amazon can sell whatever the hell it wants to sell on its site, but pulling Kindle books without refund is ridiculous and uncalled for. I have to guess they cover their butts in the EULA for the Kindle? (I bought my wife one but I can't remember seeing this, of course I probably clicked right past it)

How many Ars members had heard of or had planned to buy the books in question?

So you are only interested in injustice when it happens to you? Do you expect other people to care when it is your turn?

Notice the 'if'.

We don't know both sides of the story.

Quote:

"When one reader called to get a refund for the book she no longer had access to, she was chastised by the Amazon customer service representative about the 'severity' of the book she’d chosen to purchase," Kitt wrote.

If true, then Amazon has some explaining to do.

And...

I seriously doubt any customer service rep that wants their job chastised a customer calling for a refund.

That smell is called "obsolescence", and if it matters that much to you, i guess you should enjoy it while you can. If you want to live in the 1950's, with musty old rooms, creaky floors, and snobby young people (or crotchety old people) manning the register, you go right ahead. The rest of us are moving on, and paying less on top of it.

I am willing to risk obsolescence and paying more if it means it will be harder for some self-elected moral judge to steal books from my library.

I am willing, also, to take whatever measure necessary to prevent someone bringing Fahrenheit 451 into being (read that as a personal, mortal threat to whatever individual or organization attempts it).

My post had nothing at all to do with Amazon's bullshit behavior in this instance, I was addressing the mindset of the poster I quoted.

Of course I'd be pissed at Amazon for doing this (if I were affected), especially after they said it wouldn't happen again. If it happens to me, I'll take my money to a different modern-day retail outlet for my book needs, but again, it won't be to a musty old closet from 60 years ago that BitPoet seems to be in love with.

That's the usual way cowards hide behind capitalism to justify unfair behaviour, but I wouldn't dare assume you meant it like that.Amazon is big enough to have a significant influence on society, therefor their responsibility extends beyond "doing whatever they feel like".

And I would counter that's the usual way cowards hide behind socialism to justify unfair demands of a popular company.

We're all adults and we can make our own damn decisions, and if someone is truly affected by an online vendor's actions (discounting the book deletion, as the issue is the offering or not of said books), the person's responsibility extended beyond being mindless sheep consumers.

You make the claim that Jacqui's reporting here is biased because she is a self-identified iBooks fan—as if that would mean something, even if it were true.

I would really like you to point out where you saw this avowing, as I'm very curious. Of course, you can't and won't because you're just trolling to troll which is pretty much all you've been known to do around here.

I think Amazon is trying to draw a line between historically reporting episodes of incest, and those books that dwell on the topic as the main driver of the story.

The Bible and other historical works, etc, I would imagine fall under something like a "reportage" clause at Amazon, meaning they consider it simply repeating supposed facts and not ficticious or gratifying in nature.

Contrast this with works of fiction which may include incest and other naughty parts for titilation and I could see how Amazon would start pulling books, especially if they're reacting to direct complaints about said books or still feeling the fallout from the Pedo book sales complaints.

Amazon can sell whatever the hell it wants to sell on its site, but pulling Kindle books without refund is ridiculous and uncalled for. I have to guess they cover their butts in the EULA for the Kindle? (I bought my wife one but I can't remember seeing this, of course I probably clicked right past it)

There's a very big grey line between "historical instances of incest" and "works of fiction that may include incest". In any case the real issue is that they pulled books without warning again despite saying they wouldn't.

Your point being? Just because someone likes an alternative or competing product, that doesn't mean they're wrong about what they're saying.

Please don't assume that what one troll says is true. I don't use iBooks and, in fact, I don't like it either.

I like iBooks, it has the most pleasant interface of all the readers. But I buy most of my books from Amazon, and the second most through the Nook app. Until Apple can complete more deals, it doesn't have a big enough selection. But it will get there.

I prefer using the iPad for this because I have access to all the apps, not just one. Even Amazon doesn't always have all the books I want, and then B&N often does. Sometimes even iBookstore. I've got the Borders app too, but haven't enabled it yet. Same thing for Google books. But I do have a lot of the books Google has scanned, and that are available in PDF format. I read them in Goodreader.

This is what I don't like about the dedicated book readers. They are way too limited.

Further info gathered from 'round the net claims that Amazon did not actually delete the books from anyone's Kindle device; rather Amazon deleted the books from the users' archives that are stored on Amazon's servers. So those users who had purchased the book, then removed it from their Kindle, trusting that they'd be forever able to download it again from Amazon (as Amazon claims they can), can not download it again.

If is is in fact what happened (I can not verify this), then Amazon would seem to have abided by the letter of their court settlement -- they didn't delete anything from anyone's Kindle, they just deleted it from their own servers. Which will probably keep 'em from another lawsuit, if not from the bad PR.

Prior to two weeks ago, I wouldn't have cared about this, but then two weeks ago I bought a Kindle. And in that time I've already figured out how to get non-Amazon-purchased books onto the device, how to convert books in other formats to the mobi format the Kindle uses, and how to back up on my own hard drive any ebooks I buy from Amazon. Frankly I love the damn thing, I'm going to keep on using it, and I'm going to keep on giving Amazon my money. Even though I don't like what they did on this occasion, the capability of getting a book to read in 20 damn seconds wins me over. I am Amazon's bitch.

There's a reason I strip the DRM off of every book I buy from Amazon and keep a second copy on my computer. The Kindle is a great device, but never trust an online repository to keep your books (or games or music) available after you've bought it.

Same here. Plus now I can use TTS in the car.

I've even bought a DRM'd title from B&N, stripped it and ejoyed it on my Kindle. Consumer choice is awesome!

I haven't dealt with Amazon since that 1984 fiasco. For this very reason. Amazon are *book burners*. The first time I could half-way see it as an honest f*ckup. They should *NEVER* and I mean never delete something from your Kindle. And when they did they should have put it back! Or at least a legally published equivalent copy.

Had they done that, they'd have looked like heroes to both sides. But they instead became that most vile and contemptible creature, the censor.

Book burning is not acceptable--ever. Not for ANY reason.

Period.

Not even bad credit card transactions. How about you don't send the book until the card clears! Duh.

Deletion once purchased is an absolute abomination and I hope they get hit with the mother of all lawsuits over this--perhaps even contempt of court charges... Let's see: Amazon can't do *any* business until they restore everyone's copy that was deleted. That sounds just doesn't it? Restitution and all that...

I bought a Nook because Amazon are book burners and Sony installs root kits. Not anymore you say? Maybe not Sony, but Amazon clearly hasn't learned its lesson! And I wouldn't put it past Sony to pull another fast one either.

Further info gathered from 'round the net claims that Amazon did not actually delete the books from anyone's Kindle device; rather Amazon deleted the books from the users' archives that are stored on Amazon's servers. So those users who had purchased the book, then removed it from their Kindle, trusting that they'd be forever able to download it again from Amazon (as Amazon claims they can), can not download it again.

If is is in fact what happened (I can not verify this), then Amazon would seem to have abided by the letter of their court settlement -- they didn't delete anything from anyone's Kindle, they just deleted it from their own servers.

Hmmm...this is probable. It's why I've always said you should make a backup of your own ebook files instead of trusting a third party (Amazon) to do it for you.

You are missing the point. Two points, in fact:a) She should be able to do what she wants, it's her life, but the fact that she is allowed to show her camel toe on public TV is questionable: it would probably be considered indecent by anybody who is not a nudist, and nudists don't represent a majority of the population. b) The issue is hypocrisy and double moral standards. You can not accept people's ability to do some things publicly that you censor in less public circumstances.

Not to mention that, indeed, she is 16, not 18, hence watching her expose herself in sexually ambiguous positions is arguably pedophilia.

And yet at 12:07 according to the Journalbot posting, the Ars story says Amazon deleted it from users Kindles...a topic that is known to inflame the Ars forum population:

Quote:

JournalBotRegistered: Apr 5, 2005Posts: 39460Posted: Today, 12:07 pm Amazon has reportedly begun removing content that touches on various forms of incest—from both its online store and buyers' Kindles. The situation is complicated, too, because of Amazon's past censorship decisions and also its latest TV ad.

I'm sticking to paper books. When was the last time a bookseller came to your house and demanded that you return the book you paid for? Knowing that ANY book you buy from Amazon can be taken away is definitely a good reason not to buy a Kindle or a e-book for Kindle.

I think Amazon is trying to draw a line between historically reporting episodes of incest, and those books that dwell on the topic as the main driver of the story.

The Bible and other historical works, etc, I would imagine fall under something like a "reportage" clause at Amazon, meaning they consider it simply repeating supposed facts and not ficticious or gratifying in nature.

Contrast this with works of fiction which may include incest and other naughty parts for titilation and I could see how Amazon would start pulling books, especially if they're reacting to direct complaints about said books or still feeling the fallout from the Pedo book sales complaints.

Amazon can sell whatever the hell it wants to sell on its site, but pulling Kindle books without refund is ridiculous and uncalled for. I have to guess they cover their butts in the EULA for the Kindle? (I bought my wife one but I can't remember seeing this, of course I probably clicked right past it)

Excuse me, but could you explain how the "Bible" is "not ficticious or gratifying in nature" and the works by Selena Kitt are not? Both are "gratifying" in their own way. Selena Kitt at least is honest enough to call her books fiction while 'bible thumpers' all too often claim the "Bible" is actually the historical record of the Earth since it's 'creation' some 6000-10000 years ago.

As to "works of fiction which may include incest and other naughty parts for titilation and I could see how Amazon would start pulling books". Well, then I must ask you to explain this, http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_ ... =618072011. Seems to me that if I can plug "incest" in to Amazon.com's search and get 812 results (the first 12 being works of erotic fiction), then Amazon isn't exactly being consistent.

This is precisely why EULA's are anti-consumer legal trickery and nothing more. If you can't read one an understand it, then it should be void... It should also be void if it has to be more than 4 pages (and I personally think EVEN THAT is too generous).

You are missing the point. Two points, in fact:a) She should be able to do what she wants, it's her life, but the fact that she is allowed to show her camel toe on public TV is questionable: it would probably be considered indecent by anybody who is not a nudist, and nudists don't represent a majority of the population. b) The issue is hypocrisy and double moral standards. You can not accept people's ability to do some things publicly that you censor in less public circumstances.

Not to mention that, indeed, she is 16, not 18, hence watching her expose herself in sexually ambiguous positions is arguably pedophilia.

Not all states are dumb enough to have draconian laws claiming a 16yo cannot do this.